Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said only the federal government should have high-capacity gun magazines and that the state ought to have a monopoly on legitimate violence.

At a Capitol Hill press conference on Wednesday, Nadler gathered with other House Democrats to push for stricter gun control in the wake of last weeks massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., which left 26 dead, including 20 children. The lawmaker told CNSNews.com that he not only supports prohibiting the future sale of 10-round gun magazines, but he would like to confiscate high-capacity clips already legally possessed by American citizens.

CNSNews.com asked: Would banning high-capacity clips at Ft. Hood have prevented Maj. Nidal Hasan from killing 13 people and wounding 29 others? I dont know. It might have, Nadler said. Certainly, it was on a military base and he may or may not have had authority to use military weapons. I dont know whether he did or not.

Nadler is just another deluded adherent of Eastern European concepts ~ they all believe in a state monopoly on violence! The Germans do; the Poles; the Czechs, Hungarians, the Russians, Ukrainians, etc.

It is incompatable with true American values.

So why is this puke in Congress? Did we forget to Americanize a district in New York City or something.

hitler said only the Nazis had the right to high capacity magazines and firearms of any kind... he disarmed the country... he also said the Jews were responsible for all of Germany's ills...and we know how that ended. Fat turd nadler the waddler is just a modern day NAZI.

LLS

3
posted on 12/22/2012 5:15:55 AM PST
by LibLieSlayer
(A child is born in Bethlehem KING of KINGS)

>>should we presume he doesnt know what happened in Nazi Germany back in 1938 too . . . ?

I would assume that he does know and he thinks that its a great idea. Communist politicians like him are scum, and the people who elect them are pathetic herd animals who want to stand around eating free food until its their time to get in line and walk up that chute to the slaughterhouse.

Must every tragic mass shooting bring out the shrill ignorance of “gun control” advocates?

The key fallacy of so-called gun control laws is that such laws do not in fact control guns. They simply disarm law-abiding citizens, while people bent on violence find firearms readily available.

If gun control zealots had any respect for facts, they would have discovered this long ago, because there have been too many factual studies over the years to leave any serious doubt about gun control laws being not merely futile but counterproductive.

Places and times with the strongest gun control laws have often been places and times with high murder rates. Washington, D.C., is a classic example, but just one among many.

When it comes to the rate of gun ownership, that is higher in rural areas than in urban areas, but the murder rate is higher in urban areas. The rate of gun ownership is higher among whites than among blacks, but the murder rate is higher among blacks. For the country as a whole, hand gun ownership doubled in the late 20th century, while the murder rate went down.

The few counter-examples offered by gun control zealots do not stand up under scrutiny. Perhaps their strongest talking point is that Britain has stronger gun control laws than the United States and lower murder rates.

But, if you look back through history, you will find that Britain has had a lower murder rate than the United States for more than two centuries  and, for most of that time, the British had no more stringent gun control laws than the United States. Indeed, neither country had stringent gun control for most of that time.

In the middle of the 20th century, you could buy a shotgun in London with no questions asked. New York, which at that time had had the stringent Sullivan Law restricting gun ownership since 1911, still had several times the gun murder rate of London, as well as several times the London murder rate with other weapons.

Neither guns nor gun control was the reason for the difference in murder rates. People were the difference.

Yet many of the most zealous advocates of gun control laws, on both sides of the Atlantic, have also been advocates of leniency toward criminals.

In Britain, such people have been so successful that legal gun ownership has been reduced almost to the vanishing point, while even most convicted felons in Britain are not put behind bars. The crime rate, including the rate of crimes committed with guns, is far higher in Britain now than it was back in the days when there were few restrictions on Britons buying firearms.

In 1954, there were only a dozen armed robberies in London but, by the 1990s after decades of ever-tightening gun ownership restrictions  there were more than a hundred times as many armed robberies.

Gun control zealots’ choice of Britain for comparison with the United States has been wholly tendentious, not only because it ignored the history of the two countries, but also because it ignored other countries with stronger gun control laws than the United States, such as Russia, Brazil, and Mexico. All of these countries have higher murder rates than the United States.

You could compare other sets of countries and get similar results. Gun ownership has been three times as high in Switzerland as in Germany, but the Swiss have had lower murder rates. Other countries with high rates of gun ownership and low murder rates include Israel, New Zealand, and Finland.

Guns are not the problem. People are the problem  including people who are determined to push gun control laws, either in ignorance of the facts or in defiance of the facts.

There is innocent ignorance and there is invincible, dogmatic, and self-righteous ignorance. Every tragic mass shooting seems to bring out examples of both among gun control advocates.

Some years back, there was a professor whose advocacy of gun control led him to produce a “study” that became so discredited that he resigned from his university. This column predicted at the time that this discredited study would continue to be cited by gun control advocates. But I had no idea that this would happen the very next week in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

said only the federal government should have high-capacity gun magazines and that the state ought to have a monopoly on legitimate violence.

So who's to say what violence is legitimate?Crooked Federal Prosecuters who know about the Fast and Furious scandle and are not pursuing the people who instigated the selling of Real assault rifles to drug dealers.

Also are we now supposed to trust Law Enforcement agencies of any stripe that can break into your home under color of the law and not only terrify your family but place their lives at risk.

To hell with that.If these Government entities want to possess these high powered toys,I want the ability to have those same toys to defend myself or others should clear thinking on their part go overboard.

After-all,They work for me the tax payer.I don't work for them.

13
posted on 12/22/2012 6:00:51 AM PST
by puppypusher
(The World is going to the dogs.)

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

It has for those who advocated and accomplished it for a while. Kinda rough on everyone else though.

But if you think, even for a second, that those who wish to take guns from the good guys want to do it for "crime control and safety" you are only deluding yourself. They want to take the guns from the good guys because it gives tem total control over everyone else.

Can you believe this a$$clown has actually come out and stated what he really thinks? His statement is completely 180 degrees out of phase with the Founders’ views of the militia being the whole people, and the ability of the people to keep an evil standing army in check.

This is twisting the actual term used by political scientists, as I understand it. The term is "a monopoly on organized violence" which I believe allows violence in self defense that is not planned beforehand, hence not organized.

In the case of the horrible events at Sandy Hook, it took the monopolist government protection personnel at least 7 minutes to respond to calls for help. Those professionals did not have to discharge their weapons because the killing and wounding had already been accomplished to the satisfaction of the murderer.

Had the murderer been only able to bring a baseball bat, he would have just killed maybe half as many children.

It is true that when seconds count, police help is only minutes away. A recent survey of almost 100 mass shooting events showed that when it was terminated by police on average 14 people were murdered and when it was terminated by someone on site, less than 4 people were murdered. Moreover, with a single exception, these mass murders took place in gun-free zones.

Given the left’s reaction to the suggestion that it is prudent to have at least one person at a school who is armed, it is clear that all this gun-control feeding frenzy is far more targeted (to borrow a word) at grabbing guns than to increasing the safety of school children.

Nadler is in denial of the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment, and why we need it.

The 1st Amendment restricts Congress from passing laws in the proscribed areas of life, but the 2nd Amendment restricts ALL governments, federal, state, and local, from infringing on the people’s right to keep and bear arms.

Neither amendment restricts the people in any way.

(To get picky with what I just wrote, the 1st does say Congress can’t pass laws restricting the people’s right to PEACEABLY assemble, so it is an implied restriction on the people, saying it only applies if the people assemble peaceably. Note the difference between peacefully and peaceably, though.)

The violence by the governments under Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, Chairman Mao, and many others was considered considered “legitimate violence”. nadler is now publicly admitting that the government he wants for this nation would make us slaves under the ownership of the government nd they are free to punish us as they see fit including taking our lives, but it’s only the price we pay for electing these commie B______S. I can only pray that Mr. nadler will personally come from me but they are only C_________T cowards that will have an army of psychopaths, sadist and dullards to do their bidding. COME AND TAKE IT.

Has Jerrold The Waddler even been awake for the past ten years? Has he seen the slaughter happening down on our southern border in a country which does ban firearms for everybody except agents of the government? How is that "gun control" working out for them?

What evidence is there it would work out any better for us? Has The Waddler visited Chicago lately?

I could go on and on but it is obvious he is not interested in facts, just disarming the good people of America so he and his fellow tyrants can work their nefarious agendas without any worry. He is a despicable, lard-assed little Nazi who daily proves his "oath" to the Constitution is meaningless to him and everyone else!

32
posted on 12/22/2012 7:31:34 AM PST
by Gritty
(If any of the Western world is to survive, it has to find a way to turn around, to go back-Mk Steyn)

And there are some subleties to the meaning. For instance, Weber recognized a right to self-defense. It’s just that he felt the right was granted to the individual by the state rather than originating in the individual. If that’s the case, then the state is justified in regulating the extent of the right. This seems to be where Nadler is going with the statement.

The focus of this current witch-hunt is all wrong. Instead of jumping all over the NRA for their press conference and the ideas that came out of that, the focus should be on why the school administrators of Sandy Hook did not do what was necessary to protect the students that were in their care.

This current meme of saying that we cannot have more firearms in schools since that would not invite the best learning environment, needs to be pummeled and ridiculed.

I applaud the school district in Pa. that took the necessary steps to have armed officers in every school in their district, YESTERDAY. Any district that does not take this immediate step should be hauled into court and charged with derelection of responsibility.

We can go one of two ways here. We can either take action that will measureably ensure the safety of school students everywhere, or else we can mamby-pamby hand wring this situation until more school students are offered up as sacrificial lambs to the idol of political correctness.

Pressure needs to be heaped upon school districts everywhere to take decisive action now. School administrators not willing to take such action need to be drummed out of the profession for not safe guarding the children.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.